Report Number 704, November 2011
Research Report
Nominating Candidates
The Politics and Process of Utah’s Unique
Convention and Primary System
Highlights
gUtah
is one of only seven states that still uses a
convention, and the only one that allows political
parties to preclude a primary election for major
offices if candidates receive enough delegate votes.
gUtah adopted a direct primary in 1937, a system
which lasted 10 years.
gIn
1947, the Legislature re-established a caucusconvention system. If a candidate obtained 70% or
more of the delegates’ votes in the convention, he or
she was declared the nominee without a primary.
gIn the 1990s, the Legislature granted more power
to the parties to manage their conventions. In 1996,
the 70% threshold to avoid a primary was lowered
to 60% by the Democratic Party. The Republican
Party made the same change in 1999.
gUtah’s
historically high voter turnout rates have
consistently declined in recent decades. In 1960,
78.3% of the voting age population voted in the
general election. By 2008, this had fallen to about
50% of the voting age population, just below the
national average.
gIf Utah’s convention system allowed all candidates
who received at least 20% of delegates’ votes to
proceed to the primary election, at least five
more elections would have taken place since
2002. In addition, four primaries would have had
more than two candidates.
The mission of Utah Foundation is to promote
a thriving economy, a well-prepared workforce,
and a high quality of life for Utahns by performing
thorough, well-suppor ted research that helps
policymakers, business and community leaders,
and citizens better understand complex
issues and providing pr ac tical , well - re asoned
recommendations for policy change.
Douglas Matsumori, Chairman
Daniel T. Harbeke, Vice Chairman
Stephen J. Hershey Kroes, President
10 West Broadway, Suite 307
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
(801) 355-1400 • w w w.utahfoundation.org
For most of its history, Utah has used a conventionprimary system to nominate candidates for elected office.
In the spring of election years, citizens in small caucus
meetings held throughout the state elect delegates to
represent them at county and state conventions. County
conventions nominate candidates for races solely within
the county boundaries, while the state convention is used
to nominate candidates for statewide offices or those
that serve districts that span multiple counties. At these
conventions, delegates nominate candidates to compete
for their party’s nomination in the primary election, or,
if a candidate receives enough votes, they receive the
nomination outright and proceed straight to the general
election.
Utah is one of only a handful of states that still uses a convention, and the only one that
allows political parties to preclude a primary election for statewide or congressional offices
if candidates receive a high enough proportion of delegate votes. This system makes Utah
unique among states, but has also become controversial in recent years, especially in 2004
when delegates rejected Olene Walker, the popular sitting governor, and in 2010, when
they did the same to then-Senator Bob Bennett.
Part of the controversy stems from the dominance of one party in Utah elections; with
most voters choosing Republicans in general elections, some say the “real” election is the
process of wooing a relatively small group of party delegates at the spring convention. In
many areas of the state, once a Republican candidate receives the nomination, his or her
election in November is often a mere formality. Another element of concern is that party
delegates are different than the general electorate; data show that those willing to engage
in the process of being elected as a party delegate are more zealous in their politics, and
their choices produce candidates with more hardened positions on the political right or the
left, depending on the party.1 Some are calling for changes to Utah’s candidate nominating
processes, often with the motivation of increasing voters’ stakes in the decisions, with an
expressed desire of increasing voter turnout. Those calling for reform also appear to be
seeking more moderate candidates or trying to influence the policy
decisions of elected officials toward centrist policies by reducing the
influence of party delegates.2
Those who support the current system argue that reform would
infringe on the parties’ First Amendment right to association. They
hold that parties are private organizations and, as such, have the
right to manage their organization and select their candidates as
they see fit.
Discussion of change to such political processes has generated
significant debate and controversy. In the midst of this charged
political atmosphere, there is a need to better understand the history
of Utah’s nominating process – how, and especially why, the current
process developed over many decades. It is also instructive to review
nominating processes in other states to understand how unique Utah
is and if perhaps some of the other states’ processes might form models
to consider for Utah’s future.
History of Utah’s Nominating System
The history and tradition of mass meetings run deep in both Utah and
the United States. Citizens met in town halls or community meetings
during colonial times, and Alexis de Tocqueville even stipulated that
these types of meetings gave the colonists the necessary knowledge
to create a democratic society.3 Historical records also reveal that
Utahns participated in mass meetings shortly after the state was settled.
Once Utah became a state, it adopted the caucus-convention model to
nominate political candidates; the model that was employed by nearly
all other states at the time.
States began to modify their election laws shortly after Utah attained
its statehood. Primary elections were first mandated in South Carolina
in 1896, followed by Mississippi in 1902, and Alabama, Oregon and
Wisconsin in 1904. This trend of states changing to a primary system
continued in rapid succession.4 Utah maintained its caucus-convention
system throughout the early part of the 20th century, finally changing
to a primary-system with the Utah Direct Primary Law in 1937.5 The
only states to mandate primaries after Utah were New Mexico, Rhode
Island, Connecticut and Delaware.6
Utah’s Direct Primary Law established that “Political parties shall select
or nominate their respective candidates for the various national, state,
district, county, judicial, and precinct officers by a primary election.”7
Any candidate who desired to run for office needed only to submit a
nomination petition to his or her party and was directly placed on the
primary ballot. A primary election was then held, with an additional
run-off election if none of the candidates received a majority of the
vote. This is sometimes referred to as “Maw’s Law,” a reference to
powerful Democratic State Senator Herbert Maw, who was President
of the Senate from 1934 to 1938. He made unsuccessful bids for a
U.S. Senate nomination in 1934 and for the Democratic gubernatorial
nomination in 1936, losing in part because party leaders opposed
some of his policies and voted against him in the party conventions.
In response, he promoted direct primary legislation, enabling him to
secure the nomination for governor in 1940.8 Party conventions were
still held, but mainly for the purpose of establishing a party platform,
adopting party rules, and electing party officers.
This system only lasted one decade, during which the state had very
low voter turnout. It is unclear why turnout was low, but the absence
2
UTAH FOUNDATION November 2011
of many young men serving in the armed forces during World War
II may have been a contributing factor. No primary elections existed
before this time, so there was no trend for comparison. Utah reverted
back to the caucus-convention system in the late 1940s.9 In 1947,
Senate Bill 118 stated that “Political parties shall select or nominate
their respective candidates for various national, state, district, county,
judicial, and precinct offices by a primary convention and a primary
election.”10 This new law implemented a system of mass meetings and
conventions, the base of which is still used today. It established that
mass meetings would be held at the district level to elect delegates to
attend county conventions. Delegates at the county convention elected
various party officers and delegates to the state convention.
The state convention was held on or before the first Saturday in July
in each general election year, and delegates elected nominees to “run
on the party ticket at the regular primary election for all state offices
and for the office of the United States Senator…and shall adopt a
state platform for such political party for the ensuing election.”11, 12
Delegates selected a nominee or chose two candidates to compete for
the party nomination in a primary election. If a candidate received at
least 70% of delegate votes, he or she was declared the nominee, and
no primary was held for that position.
This system has remained in place with few changes. In 1951, the
Legislature voted to eliminate judicial nominations at political
conventions in an effort to make those races less political.13 The
dates of the primaries and conventions have changed several times.
In 1963, the dates of the conventions were changed to accommodate
a new earlier primary date, which was moved to August.14 However,
the primary date reverted to September in 1965.15 The state repeated
this primary date change in the 1980s. In 1983, the primary was
moved to the third Tuesday in August. Accordingly, the dates for the
conventions and mass meetings were moved as well.16 Once again,
this earlier date only lasted a few years, and the September primary
was reinstituted in 1987.17
Other small changes occurred in the 1980s as well. In 1987, it was
decided that delegates at the state convention should be able to vote
as a county block, though this was done away with in 1993 with the
return of the secret ballot.18, 19 In addition, the term “mass meeting”
was changed to “party caucus” in 1988.20
The Legislature once again passed a law to change the date of the state
primary in 1993, moving it from the second Tuesday in September, to
the fourth Tuesday of June; the party caucuses were moved to March
and it was stipulated the state convention should be held before May
7th of each even-numbered year.21 It was argued that this earlier
date would allow candidates more time to prepare for their general
elections, and would also put Utah on a similar schedule with other
states, allowing it to join the Western States Primary for presidential
elections.22
The following year, the Legislature passed a bill requiring political
parties to have an official constitution and bylaws.23 The impetus for
this bill was from several U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding political
parties and primary election laws. The substance of the Court’s
decisions was that political parties were independent organizations,
and the state’s ability to interfere in their processes was limited by the
parties’ right to association which was protected by both the First and
Fourteenth Amendments.24 Because of this, the Legislature shifted the
responsibility of governing parties from state statutes to party bylaws
Visit www.utahfoundation.org
Figure 1:Timeline of Utah’s Nominating Process
1896
1937
1947
1951
1963
1965
1983
1987
1988
1993
1996
1999
Utah is granted statehood, adopts widely used convention system.
Utah Direct Primary Law is passed, candidates filed a nomination petition with their
party and were then placed directly on the primary ballot.
Senate Bill 118 implements a new nominating system, consisting of mass meetings,
county conventions and a state convention. Candidates can bypass primary if they
receive 70% of votes at state convention.
Nomination of judicial positions at convention eliminated.
Primary election date moved to August. Mass meeting and convention dates change
accordingly.
Primary election date reverted to September. Mass meeting and convention dates
change accordingly.
Primary election date moved to August. Mass meeting and convention dates change
accordingly.
Primary election date reverted to September. Mass meeting and convention dates
change accordingly.
The term "mass meeting" is changed to "party caucus."
Primary election date moved to the fourth Tuesday of June.
Democratic Party changes 70% convention vote threshold for candidates to avoid a
primary election to 60%.
Republican Party changes 70% threshold to 60%.
Sources: Laws of Utah, eds: 1937, 1947, 1951, 1963, 1965, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1993.
and constitutions. This also granted parties more power over their own
conventions and nominating processes. Parties took advantage of this
new discretion, and in 1996, the 70% threshold to avoid a primary
was lowered to 60% by the Democratic Party. The Republican Party
lowered its threshold to 60% as well in 1999.25
Utah’s Current Nominating Process
Under Utah’s current system, the major political parties select nominees
for state office through “pre-primary conventions.” In March of every
even-numbered year, caucuses for each party are held throughout the
state.26 Caucuses are open to the public, but participants must be
at least 18 years of age and reside in the precinct, and in the case of
Republican caucuses, participants must also be registered Republicans.
Each caucus elects and sends delegates to the county and state party
conventions; the number of Republican delegates is based on the
relative strength of the party in that area, whereas the number of
Democratic delegates is set at five from each county.
At the Republican convention, delegates either select a nominee or
choose two candidates to compete for the party nomination in a
primary election. If there are three or more candidates contending for
the same office, a multiple-ballot or preference-voting method is used.27
If using the multiple-ballot method, delegates vote in a series of ballots,
and the lowest vote-getter in each round is eliminated. This process
continues until only two candidates remain for a given office. In 2002,
the Republican Party adopted the preference-voting method, in which
delegates rank candidates on one ballot and that ballot is counted
multiple times, dropping the candidate that receives the lowest number
of first-place rankings in each round. The party determines which
voting method will be used six months before the state convention,
and despite the option to use preference-voting, the multiple-ballot
method is still used consistently at the state convention. If a candidate
obtains 60% or more of the delegates votes, he or she is declared the
nominee. If neither of the two final candidates receives 60% of the
delegate vote, they will participate in a primary election to determine
the nominee. The Republican primary is a closed primary, meaning
that only registered Republicans can vote. However, unaffiliated voters
can vote if they register as a Republican at the polls.
The Democratic convention is held in a similar manner. If more than
two candidates run for the same office, multiple ballots are used,
though this has not occurred in the last decade. The Utah Democratic
Party does not employ the preference-voting method. If only two
candidates run, and one receives over 57% of the votes, delegates
then vote on a final ballot to see if the 60% majority can be achieved.
The Democratic Party candidates that receive more than 60% of the
delegate vote at their convention are declared the nominee.28 Just as
with the Republicans, if neither of the two final candidates receives
60% of the delegate vote, a primary election is held to determine the
nominee. The Democratic Party has an open primary, meaning voters
from any party and unaffiliated voters can participate.
How Utah Compares: Others States’ Systems
Utah Foundation conducted a 50-state survey to gain an accurate
understanding of other states’ nominating processes. Researchers
spoke with election administration offices in each state, studied state
constitutions and analyzed party bylaws. This extensive research
revealed how unique Utah’s caucus-convention system truly is.
Conventions can play a significant role in nominee selection in seven
states, including Utah. However, Utah is the only state that has a
caucus-convention system in which a party can preclude a primary
election for all major statewide or congressional offices.
The six other states with significant convention processes are:
Connecticut, New Mexico, Colorado, South Dakota, North Dakota,
and Virginia. In Connecticut, a candidate must receive 15% of
delegate votes in the state party convention to proceed to the primary
election. A candidate can bypass this process by gaining access to the
primary via petition.29 New Mexico’s convention process is similar
to Connecticut. A candidate must receive 20% of delegate votes to
proceed to the primary via the convention, but this can be also be
bypassed by petition.30 Colorado also uses a convention to choose
nominees; a candidate must receive 30% of delegate votes to proceed
to the primary through the convention, but a candidate can also gain
access to primary ballot via petition.31 In South Dakota, candidates
for most offices are chosen at convention, and no primary is held.
Once a candidate receives a majority of the delegate votes, he or she
is declared the official party nominee, and proceeds directly to the
general election. Candidates for the offices of governor, U.S. Senate
or U.S. House of Representatives are not chosen via convention, but
rather through a primary and then general election.32
Two other states are also of interest. In North Dakota, political
parties hold conventions in order to endorse candidates.33 Endorsed
candidates are automatically placed on the primary election ballot,
though nothing on the actual ballot signifies they are endorsed. In
addition, other candidates may also petition to be in the primary.34 In
Virginia, parties can choose whether to hold a convention or primary
each election, however, primaries are used most often and conventions
have not been held in at least a decade.35 All other states select nominees
through a primary election, though several of these states require nonmajor parties to hold conventions.
Analysis of Utah’s Candidate Nominating System
Proponents of Utah’s system argue that the caucus system allows active
citizens to research and make informed decisions on representation.
In a recent online discussion at Utah Policy, one participant stated,
“Neighborhood caucuses are grass roots involvement at its best.”36
In addition, caucuses generally allow a broader field of candidates
to participate because campaigning at the caucus level is relatively
inexpensive.
UTAH FOUNDATION November 2011
3
Figure 2: Methods of Nominating Candidates for State and Federal Offices
Primary
Only
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
x
x
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
x
x
x
x
x
Convention
Bypass
Convention
via Petition
x
x
x
x
Candidates who receive more than 30% of votes at the convention proceed to the primary.
Candidates who receive more than 15% of votes at the convention proceed to the primary.
x
x
Candidates who receive more than 20% of votes at the convention proceed to the primary.
x
x
Convention held to endorse candidates, other candidates can still proceed to the primary via petition.
Notes
x
Convention held to select candidate for the general election for all state offices except Governor. Candidates for Governor,
U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate are selected in a primary election (access the primary via petition).
x
The two candidates that receive the most delegate votes proceed to primary; can avoid a primary by
getting 60% or more of delegate votes.
x
Parties can choose whether to use a primary or convention; recently have used primaries almost exclusively.
Source: Utah Foundation Survey of Election Officials and Review of Election Laws in All States.
Opponents of the caucus-convention system argue that it disenfranchises
voters. Most caucus meetings are attended by less than 15 people, which
represent a small portion of the electorate. According to data provided
by the Republican Party, 58,175 people attended Republican caucus
meetings in 2010; this represents about 10% of registered Republicans
in Utah, and 3% of the voting-age population. In addition, research has
shown that convention delegates do not represent the general electorate;
they have different priorities and are either more liberal, in the case
of Democrats, or more conservative, in the case of Republicans, than
other party members.37 This may also have policy implications, as
legislators may focus on policies that delegates support, sometimes in
conflict with those policies supported by the general public. From the
same online forum mentioned earlier, another participant said, “Too
few people and energetic minority opinions hold too much sway in our
system. We shouldn’t consider this aging system a real representative
democracy.”38
Voter Turnout
Political scientists argue that the structure of the voting system can
either hinder or induce voter turnout.39 An examination of voter
turnout in different states shows there may be some veracity to these
4
UTAH FOUNDATION November 2011
theories. In general, states that eliminate barriers to voting and allow
election-day registration and hold open primaries have higher voter
turnout. States that have stricter laws have lower voter turnout.
There are other important factors that can influence voter turnout
that have little to do with election law, such as the probability that an
individual’s vote will affect the outcome of an election, the perceived
benefit of the outcome, the gratification a person may derive from
fulfilling their civic duty, and the costs of the time and effort it may
take to go to the polls.40
Historically, Utah had relatively high voter turnout rates, but the
rates have consistently declined in recent decades. In 1960, 78.3%
of the voting age population voted in the general election. By 1972,
this had fallen to 68.7% of eligible voting age, and 66.4% in 1980.
Turnout remained steady through the 1980s and early 1990s, but
fell dramatically to 51.6% in the 1996 election. Since that time,
turnout in presidential elections has remained slightly above 50%,
but has hovered around 35% in mid-term elections. In the 1960s,
1970s and 1980s, Utah’s turnout was always well above the national
average. In 1998, Utah’s turnout was below the national average,
and has remained near or below average since that time.
Visit www.utahfoundation.org
Figure 3:Turnout of Voting Age Population in General Elections
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
U.S.
40%
Utah
30%
20%
10%
0%
1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2010
Sources: Federal Election Commission, State of Utah.
Figure 4: Primary Election Voter Turnout in Utah
40%
35%
Prim ary System
In the past few years, a number of reports, articles and debates have
weighed the pros and cons of Utah’s nominating process. Amidst
these debates are questions of whether Utah’s system should be
changed, and what type of effect any reform would have. This
section will address two of the more controversial convention votes
in the past decade, and model them against New Mexico’s system
in which all candidates who receive 20% of delegate votes move on
to the primary, and Colorado’s, in which all candidates who receive
30% proceed to the primary.
The 2004 Republican Convention
Olene Walker served as the Lieutenant Governor in Utah from
1993 to 2003 for then Governor Mike Leavitt. When Leavitt was
nominated to be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency
by President Bush, Walker assumed his office and became the first
female governor in Utah’s history. Just as her predecessor, Walker
enjoyed very high job approval ratings in public polls.
Shortly after she was sworn in, Walker faced her first legislative
session as governor, and soon after, would face her first Republican
convention. Walker decided to focus on the session, and delayed
announcing her intentions to run for re-election until after the session
ended in March. This left only two months to garner delegate votes,
something other candidates had been working on for much longer.
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Modeling Changes to Utah’s Convention/
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Source: State of Utah.
The United States also saw a decline in voter turnout, though
not as dramatic as in Utah. In 1960, 63.1% of the eligible voting
population voted. Turnout held steady throughout the 1960s, but
dropped to 55.2% in 1972. This drop, as with the decrease in turnout
that occurred in Utah at this time, was due to the increase of the
voting population. The 26th Amendment was adopted in 1971,
and expanded the voting age to include everyone above the age of
18, since young people are less likely to vote, it caused voter turnout
rates to decrease. Since then, the national voting rate has remained
relatively stable, whereas Utah’s has continued to decline.
Voter turnout in Utah’s primary elections has also declined in recent
decades. From 1980 to 1990, turnout of the voting-age population in
primary elections ranged from a low of 10.3% in 1988, to a high of
26.0% in 1984, but usually was in the mid-teens. In 1992, Utah had
a larger-than average turnout of 35.4% of the voting-age population.
This sharp increase in turnout was due to open seats for several highprofile offices, including U.S. Senate, Utah’s 2nd Congressional
District, and Governor. Turnout in primary elections dropped to
11.0% in 1994 and 10.7% in 1996. Since that time, it has stayed
below 10% of voting-age population except in two occasions. In
2000, a large turnout was caused by a gubernatorial primary, an open
seat for the U.S. presidency and a very contentious race for Utah’s
2nd Congressional District in which incumbent Merrill Cook lost to
Derek Smith. In 2010, primary turnout was 12.5% of the voting-age
population, the highest in a mid-term election since 1990.
In addition, Walker angered the conservative base of the Republican
Party during the session by vetoing legislation that would have
allowed for private-school vouchers. She also threatened to veto the
entire $8 billion budget if GOP lawmakers didn’t include an extra $30
million in funding for her reading program in elementary schools.41
Both of these actions upset legislators and the conservative base of
the Republican Party.
At the Republican convention, Walker faced a field of serious
candidates. She was only able to garner just over 14% of delegate
votes in the first round, placing her fourth behind Jon Hunstman,
Jr., Nolan Karras, and Fred Lampropoulos.42 She was eliminated in
the fifth round of voting, making her the first sitting Utah governor
to lose an election bid in 48 years.43
Whether Utah had a system similar to New Mexico or Colorado
would not have mattered in this race, because Walker did not
receive enough votes to pass a 20% or 30% threshold to proceed to
a primary. However, if Utah did not have a convention system and
Walker had been able to run in a direct primary, it is quite possible
she would have won. An opinion poll conducted the same month
of the convention showed that 80% of Utahns approved of the job
Walker was doing, and only 10% disapproved.44
2010 Republican Convention
Bob Bennett was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992, succeeding
retiring Senator Jake Garn. After a close primary race, Bennett went
on to easily defeat Wayne Owens in the general election.45 Bennett
was easily re-elected in the 1998 general election with 64.0% of the
vote, and in 2004 with 68.7%.
In the years preceding the 2010 election, a conservative movement
had been growing throughout the nation. In Utah specifically, many
UTAH FOUNDATION November 2011
5
conservatives argued Bennett wasn’t conservative enough, and cited
his vote for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
(commonly known as the bank bailout or TARP) as evidence.46
Because of this, Bennett went into the Republican Party convention
facing stiff competition. A poll of Republican delegates just one month
before showed Bennett trailing conservative lawyer Mike Lee, and a
few points ahead of businessman Tim Bridgewater.47
In the first round of voting, Senator Bennett received 25.9% of the
delegate votes, placing third behind Lee (28.8%) and Bridgewater
(26.8%), but well ahead of the five other candidates who were
eliminated in that vote. In the second round, Bennett received 27.0%
of delegate votes, again placing him third behind Bridgewater (37.4%)
and Lee (36.0%), thus eliminating Bennett and precluding him from
running in the primary election as a Republican.48
If Utah’s nominating process were in line with New Mexico’s, the fact
that Senator Bennett received above 20% of delegate votes would have
guaranteed him a spot in the Republican primary. At the time of the
convention, polls showed that Bennett was supported by a plurality of
Republican registered voters.49 Because of this, he may have won the
primary election, and just as Mike Lee did, won the general election
easily. If Utah’s nominating process were in line with Colorado’s, the
25.9% of delegate votes Senator Bennett received in the first round
of voting would not have been enough to place him on the primary
ballot, and the results would have been the same.
After Bennett’s loss, some speculated whether he would run as an
independent or as a write-in candidate. That same year, the U.S.
Senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, lost her primary election.
However, she waged a successful write-in campaign and won the
general election with 39.1% of the vote. A similar series of events
occurred in Connecticut in 2006. U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman lost
his primary election, but knowing he might be defeated, he formed
the Connecticut for Lieberman party line shortly before the primary.
This enabled him to gain access to the general election via petition. He
succeeded in winning the general election with 50% of the vote.
In the 2010 Republican convention, delegates voted on four state-wide
elected positions: governor, U.S. Senate, and two U.S. Congress seats
(Jason Chaffetz went unopposed in Congressional District 3). In two
of these races, candidates were able to garner 60% of the votes, and
became the outright nominee, the other two led to primaries. If Utah
used New Mexico’s system, however, in which 20% of delegate votes
is needed to proceed to the primary, three races would have gone to
primaries. Governor Gary Herbert won his nomination with 70.8%
of delegate votes, but his opponent Daniel Van Oaks Jr. claimed
24.6%, enough to surpass New Mexico’s 20% threshold. If Utah
had Colorado’s 30% convention-vote threshold, the results would
have remained the same.
Another interesting even occurred at the Republican convention. In
the final round of voting for the U.S. Senate seat, Bridgewater received
57.3% of delegate votes, narrowly missing the 60% threshold that
would have allowed him to proceed directly to the general election
with no primary contest. However, Lee bested Bridgewater in a close
primary, with 51.2% of the votes.50
2010 Democratic Convention
In the 2010 Democratic convention, delegates voted on ­­­­two
6
UTAH FOUNDATION November 2011
Figure 5: Modeling Changes to Vote Thresholds and Effects on
Primary Elections
Republicans
Number of
Primaries
Held
2010
2
2008
1
2006
n/a
2004
3
2002
2
Number of
Primaries
if Utah
had 20%
Threshold
3
3
n/a
3
3
Democrats
Number of
Primaries
if Utah
had 30%
Threshold
2
2
n/a
3
3
Number of
Primaries
Held
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Number of
Primaries
if Utah
had 20%
Threshold
2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Number of
Primaries
if Utah
had 30%
Threshold
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Notable Races that would have changed under the 20% system
2010
2010
2010
U.S. Senate Republican primary would have included: Mike Lee, Tim Bridgewater and
Bob Bennett
U.S. Congress District 2 primary would have occurred and included: Neil Water and
Morgan Philpot
Gubernatorial primary would have occurred and included: Gary Herbert and Daniel
Van Oaks, Jr.
2008
2008
U.S. Congress District 2 would have occurred and included: Merrill Cook and Bill Dew
Gubernatorial primary would have occurred and included: Jon Huntsman, Jr. and
Charles Smith
2006
Data not available from either party
2004
Gubernatorial primary would have included: Jon Huntsman, Jr., Nolan Karras and Fred
Lampropoulos*
2002
U.S. Congress District 1 primary would have included: Rob Bishop, Kevin Garn and
Vickie McCall**
U.S. Congress District 2 would have included: Tim Bridgewater, John Swallow and
Jay Jorgensen**
U.S. Congress District 3 primary would have occurred and included: Chris Cannon and
Tom Drashcill
2002
2002
Note: Data for the Democratic Party was only available for 2010.
* Based on vote totals from the 4th round of voting.
** Based on vote totals from the 8th round of voting.
Sources: Utah Republican Party, Utah Democratic Party, calculations by Utah Foundation.
statewide elected positions, U.S. Senate and one U.S. Congress seat
(gubernatorial candidate Pete Corroon, and congressional candidates
Karen Hyer and Morgan Bowen all ran unopposed). In the race
for Utah’s 3rd Congressional District, incumbent Jim Matheson
received 55% of delegate votes, to Claudia Wright’s 45%, leading
to a primary to determine the nominee.51 In the U.S. Senate race,
Sam Granato won the nomination with 77.5% of the delegate vote
over Christopher Stout who received 22.5% of the vote. If Utah
employed New Mexico’s 20% rule, this race also who have proceeded
to a primary race. If Utah used Colorado’s 30% rule, the results
would have remained the same.52
Conclusion
Recently, questions have been raised about whether Utah’s system
of conventions and primaries should be reformed, and how these
changes would occur. Reform would most likely come from one of
three places, the Legislature, the parties, or from a citizen initiative.
Before the reforms of the 1990s, the Legislature had great power over
the caucus-convention system, even dictating when meetings would
be held and how party officers would be elected. Since then, power
over this system has shifted to the parties. While the U.S. Supreme
Court has recognized the states’ right to mandate a primary election,
it has tended to allow political parties to govern themselves. Because
of this, a reform that came from the Legislature may be looked on by
the courts with a dubious eye. The parties have the power to change
their systems; notably, both major parties changed the threshold of
delegate votes needed to avoid a primary from 70% to 60% in the
late 1990s. Reform could also come from a citizen initiative. If
private citizens wished to reform the system, they would be required
to propose a ballot initiative, and then gather 100,000 signatures
Visit www.utahfoundation.org
in order to place it on the general election ballot. However, such
reform could face the same court scrutiny as a statute passed by the
Legislature. Each of these options for reform would require a great
deal of political will, and would possibly face litigation by others who
may view the reform as unconstitutional.
If reform did occur, what type of impact would it have? This report
has shown that within the last decade, several races would have
continued on to primary elections, rather than being decided by
delegates in the state convention. Whether the actual outcome of
the elections would have changed is unknown, but a broader pool
of citizens (rather than solely the party delegates) would have been
able to participate in the process. If reform did occur, it would
be interesting to see if voter turnout increased in Utah’s primary
elections. As mentioned previously, political scientists have found
that states with more open voting rules and systems have higher voter
turnout rates. Data in this report also show that primary voter turnout
increased considerably when significant choices were placed before
Utah voters, as in the 1984, 1992, and 2000 election cycles.
Another important issue for reform is whether a change in the
nominating process would also change the behavior of elected
officials. Research by political scientists has shown that strong
constituencies can have a significant effect on the behavior of
leaders.53 If these findings are applied to Utah’s political system, this
may signify that elected leaders are more focused on making policies
supported by party delegates, rather than their larger constituencies.
Since the views and priorities of delegates can be quite different from
other party members or the general public, this is problematic for
representative government. If Utah’s system were reformed so that
a broader array of voters had greater power and influence, policy
decisions by elected officials would likely be different, intended to
appeal to a wider constituency.
Whether reform occurs or not, it is clear that Utah’s system of
nominating candidates is quite unique. Utah is one of only a handful
of states that still uses a nominating convention, and the only state
in the nation that allows a political party to preclude a primary
election for major state or congressional offices if candidates receive
a high enough proportion of delegate votes. This system provides
unique opportunities and challenges for the citizens and elected
officials of Utah.
Endnotes
1 Utah Foundation Report 692, “The 2010 Utah Priorities Survey of Party
Delegates and Voters,” April 2010.
2 Deseret News, “Academic Politics,” October 12, 2011.
3 De Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America, 1835.
4 Berg Anderson, Richard E., The Green Papers Website, http://www.
thegreenpapers.com/Hx/DirectPrimaryElectionYears.phtml (6 Sept 2011)
5 Laws of Utah, 1937, 56-68.
6 Alaska and Hawaii were both granted statehood in 1959, and immediately
adopted mandated primaries.
7 Laws of Utah, 1937, 57.
8 National Governor’s Association, Past Governor’s Bios, Utah Governor
Herbert Brown Maw, http://www.nga.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/NGA/
home/governors/past-governors-bios/page_utah/col2-content/main-contentlist/title_maw_herbert.html, (26 Oct 2011).
9 Deseret News, “Our Primary Law is Like the Weather,” August 22, 1946,
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19460822&id=VXczA
AAAIBAJ&sjid=sXwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6680,5376710 (26 Oct 2011).
10 Laws of Utah, 1947, 70.
11 Ibid, 64.
12 Candidates for U.S. Congress were nominated at a separate congressional
convention a few days after the state convention. This was eventually
changed so that candidates for U.S. Congress were nominated in the state
convention.
13 Laws of Utah, 1951, 93.
14 Laws of Utah, 1963, 101-106.
15 Laws of Utah, 1965, 105-111.
16 Laws of Utah, 1983, 493-499.
17 Laws of Utah, 1987, 418.
18 Ibid, 331.
19 Laws of Utah, 1992, 847.
20 Laws of Utah 1988, 598.
21 Laws of Utah 1993, 1,287.
22 Deseret News, “Measure Would Change Primary Election to June,”
February 25th, 1993, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/277439/
MEASURE-WOULD-CHANGE-PRIMARY-ELECTION-TO-JUNE.
html, (27 Oct 2011).
23 Laws of Utah, 1994, 608-609.
24 See March Fong Eu, Secretary of State of California, et al., Appellants
v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, et al. (1989); or
Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut (1986).
25Deseret News, “There’s a Way to Get Utahns to Once Again Vote in Primaries,
June 28, 1996, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/498467/
THERES-A-WAY-TO-GET-UTAHNS-TO-ONCE-AGAIN-VOTE-INPRIMARIES.html, (26 Oct 2011).
26 The Democratic Party Bylaws stipulate that the convention must be held
on the third Tuesday of March in even-numbered years. The Republican
Party has no such stricture, but their convention is usually held mid- to
late-March.
27 Utah Republican Party Constitution, 2010 Official Version, Article XII;
Utah Republican Party Bylaws, Section 7.0, Conventions and Elections.
28 Utah Democratic Party Bylaws, 2010 Official Version, Article II, Section
4, Nomination of Candidates for the General Election.
29 Connecticut Democratic State Party Rules, Article 3, Section 13 &
Connecticut Republican Rules and Bylaws, Article II, Section 11.
30 New Mexico Statute, Chapter 1, Article 8, Section 1-8-21.
31 Colorado Revised Statutes, 1-4-701. Party nominations to be made by
convention, http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/1-4-701.html (10 Oct 2011).
32 South Dakota Code 12-6-4, http://law.justia.com/codes/southdakota/2011/title12/ (Oct 18 2011).
33 North Dakota State Code, Chapter 16, Party Committee Organization,
1-03-14.
34 Ibid, 1-11-06.
35 Virginia Democratic Party Plan, Section 4.18, http://www.vademocrats.
org/sites/va-dems-v2.vanwebhost.com/files/DPV%20Party%20Plan%20
2010.pdf (2 Nov 2011).
36 Utah Policy, “Should Utah Change to Direct Primaries?” http://www.
utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/15713288/article-Should-Utah-Changeto-Direct-Primaries-? (10 Oct 2011).
37 Utah Foundation Report 692, “The 2010 Utah Priorities Survey of Party
Delegates and Voters,” April 2010.
38 Utah Policy, “Should Utah Change to Direct Primaries?” http://www.
utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/15713288/article-Should-Utah-Changeto-Direct-Primaries-? (10 Oct 2011).
39 Powell, Bingham. “American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective”
American Political Science Review, Vol. 80, No. 1, Mar., 1986.
40 Fowler, James H., Kam CD “Beyond the Self: Altruism, Social Identity,
and Political Participation,” Journal of Politics 69 (3): 811–825 (August
2007). The basic idea behind this formula is credited to Anthony Downs.
UTAH FOUNDATION November 2011
7
41 Bob Bernick, Jr., “Huntsman challenged,” Deseret News, Feb 2,
2005.
42 “Utah GOP takes incumbent out of running,” USA Today, May 8,
2004.
43 Bob Bernick Jr. and Jerry D. Spangler, “GOP selects Huntsman, Karras,”
Deseret News, May 9, 2004.
44 Jerry D. Spangler, “80% approve of Walker,” Deseret News, May 16,
2004.
45 Elections in the State of Utah, http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/e/
ELECTIONS.html, (2 Nov 2011).
46 “Robert F. Bennett,” New York Times, http://topics.nytimes.com/
topics/reference/timestopics/people/b/robert_f_bennett/index.html (2 Nov
2011).
47 Bob Bernick Jr., “Poll shows Sen. Bob Bennett in trouble with Utah GOP
delegates,” Deseret News, April 25, 2010, see also Utah Foundation Report
692, “The 2010 Utah Priorities Survey of Party Delegates and Voters,” April
2010.
48 Utah Republican Party Blog http://blog.utgop.org/sites/category/
convention-2010/ (2 Nov 2011).
49 Davidson, Lee and Bob Bernick Jr., “Delegates don’t like Sen. Bob
Bennett, but poll says voters do,” Deseret News, May 7, 2010.
50 Utah Elections Results, Republicans for U.S. Senate http://electionresults.
utah.gov/xmlData/300010.html (2 Nov 2011).
51 Roche, Lisa Riley and Arthur Raymond, “Jim Matheson forced into
primary election with Claudia Wright for Utah Democrat nomination,”
Deseret News, May 9, 2010.
52 “Untied States Senate Election in Utah, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Utah,_2010 (3 Nov 2011).
53 Arnold, R. Douglas, The Logic of Congressional Action, New Haven:
Yale University Press. 1990.
This research report was written by Utah Foundation Senior Research
Analyst Morgan Lyon Cotti with assistance from Intern Natalie Torosyan
and President Stephen Hershey Kroes. Comments or questions
should be directed to Ms. Lyon Cotti at (801) 355-1400 or by email at
[email protected].
MAJOR SUPPORTERS OF UTAH FOUNDATION
Platinum
Rio Tinto
Rocky Mountain Power
Gold
Energy Solutions
George S. and Dolores Doré Eccles
Foundation
Intermountain Power Agency
Questar Gas
Utah Transit Authority
Silver
American Express
University of Utah Health Care
Intermountain Healthcare
Wells Fargo
Merit Medical Systems
Wheeler Machinery
MountainStar Healthcare
Workers Compensation Fund
Parsons
Zions Bancorporation
Parsons Brinkerhoff
Regence BlueCross BlueShield
Union Pacific
Bronze
Brigham Young University
Granite Construction
Parsons Behle & Latimer
University of Utah
Central Utah Clinic
HDR Engineering
Ray Quinney & Nebeker
US Bank
Deloitte
Holland & Hart
Sandy City
Utah System of Higher Education
Deseret Management Corp.
IM Flash Technologies
Staker & Parson Companies
Utah Valley University
Ernst & Young
Key Bank
Southern Utah University
Wasatch Front Regional Council
Garbett Homes
The mission of Utah Foundation is to promote a thriving economy, a well-prepared workforce, and a high quality of life for
Utahns by performing thorough, well-supported research that helps policymakers, business and community leaders, and
citizens better understand complex issues and providing practical, well-reasoned recommendations for policy change.
Douglas Matsumori, Chairman • Daniel T. Harbeke,Vice Chairman • Stephen J. Hershey Kroes, President
(801) 355-1400 • www.utahfoundation.org
8
UTAH FOUNDATION November 2011
Visit www.utahfoundation.org